Indeed. Quite different. Which was my point. Our 'system' is different. Its evolved. Our sense of compassion has grown. We have come far with our
understanding of morality over the centuries. Thanks to great thinkers, and people willing to look beyond a book claiming to have authority on these
matters.

I completely disagree. Our morality is not superior. We have options that were not available to them. In many ways their morality was superior. Which
do you think is "better", a system that lets a rapist go free multiple times for them to rape women over and over, or one that prevents them from ever
destroying another person's life? Is the system that says a man who rapes a girl MULTIPLE times from the age of 14 walks free with PROBATION moral?

Who will care for the woman? What about if there is a child? There's no federal government welfare and food stamps. What would be your
solution? Which solution provides for the longterm needs of the woman?

Surely a being of infinite wisdom and infinite love could provide that so I don't need to!! Surely that being could have devised a strategy more ideal
than killing the victim!! Surely that could have been included in that holy text then, during that time! Surely.

The victim is not killed. The man who raped her was forced to care for her as a wife, and divorce was denied. I think you are confused. The only time
the woman was killed was when she was married and had consentual sex.

Allowing it to continue is possibly the worst crime a person can commit.

How does that make said god immune from moral scrutiny? Sure lets pretend god is real and god has a message and we need to follow it or we will be
punished and or not rewarded. Not killing that 'false prophet' and so not following god's will could be the worst crime under that beings law. Why is
that law immune from scrutiny? It seems the implication is morality is the sole domain of religion. That in of itself is morally reprehensible to me.

I never said we should not examine God or His law's. I simply said IF we assume God is real, then the worst crime possible is someone leading another
person away from Him. In that light killing a false prophet to prevent him from trying to do exactly that is not a bad thing.

Yet you say we have the better morals?

We so obviously do. Perfect no. Of course not. Better now? Obsoletely. To deny that is intellectual dishonesty on your part. Or cognitive dissonance
created as a defense mechanism to justify your religious belief.

edit on 21-11-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

No. Letting rapists walk free is better? Letting murderers back on the street to murder again is better? Letting someone who rapes a child free to
rape more children is better?

You are trying to view laws to deal with the world that existed thousands of years ago through the eyes of our current society. The technology we have
today did not exist. The world was different. The laws reflected the time in which God gave them in. You still have not answered me, if you were in
charge, how do you handle the crime of rape against an unmarried woman and how does the woman benefit under your law?

I think you are confused. The only time the woman was killed was when she was married and had consentual sex.

Yes. I confused that aspect of that verse. As I already said.

This just detonates in my brain...

"The only time the woman was killed was when she was married and had consentual sex."

Killed because she had consensual sex.

Okay

In my heart that's not moral. Nor can it be justified so.

In that light killing a false prophet to prevent him from trying to do exactly that is not a bad thing.

Yes I understood that. I too was working under the premise god was real for that. My point is why is that moral? You're making god's law synonymous
with morality. YET you just said we can judge it. So which is it? If we judge it, as I am, can we really say killing their son was the moral thing to
do even IF it was against god's law? I would say our modern collective view on morality would not be in favor of god's law in this scenario!

You still have not answered me, if you were in charge, how do you handle the crime of rape against an unmarried woman and how does the woman
benefit under your law?

I very much answered this my good neighbor. You just didn't like my response.

Who would be more apt to answer this question me or god? Answer that. If this god is omnibenevolent and omniscient surely that god could answer it
infinitely better than me. That answer should have been put in the Bible, then. It wasn't. Because a being like that hand no hand in it. It was
limited to the moral understanding of the time.

Lucid Lunacy
Yes I understood that. I too was working under the premise god was real for that. My point is why is that moral? You're making god's law synonymous
with morality. YET you just said we can judge it. So which is it? If we judge it, as I am, can we really say killing their son was the moral thing to
do even IF it was against god's law? I would say our modern collective view on morality would not be in favor of god's law in this
scenario!

edit on 21-11-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Let's take this one step at a time. Suppose there is a man who has killed other men, and he is going to keep killing other men. Is it moral to kill
him to prevent him killing innocents?

You still have not answered me, if you were in charge, how do you handle the crime of rape against an unmarried
woman and how does the woman benefit under your law?

I very much answered this my good neighbor. You just didn't like my response.

Who would be more apt to answer this question me or god? Answer that. If this god is omnibenevolent and omniscient surely that god could answer it
infinitely better than me. That answer should have been put in the Bible, then. It wasn't.

Yes it was. The Bible says the man responsible for raping an unmarried woman must marry her. She can say no, he can not. She can divorce him, he can
never divorce her. The Bible's solution is to protect the woman in the best way possible in those times. So, what is your solution? What would you
have done when a man rapes an unmarried woman?

So, what is your solution? What would you have done when a man rapes an unmarried woman?

I am not typing the same response 3 times.

Lets try some more verses.

"They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or
two for me in the spoil." ~Judges 5:30

Raping the likely innocent women in wartime is morally okay because…. oh right…times were different. God couldn't devise a better moral
understanding for them. Never minding the fact there had long since been some impressively, progressively, moral teachings in the East (I suppose god
just wanted that select group to have that wisdom eh?).

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought
her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.
And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.
If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in
any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." ~Exodus 21:7-11

So if I understand your direction with this, the later part of that justifies the fact sex slavery is condoned to begin with.

Like I said at the start. The original post of mine you replied to. Rape, slavery, and murder is throughout the bible. Condoned and even encouraged.
This could go on and on back and forth between us. We won't see eye to eye because we fundamentally differ on one crucial point: I don't believe a
creator god has anything to do with any bible. My assessment of biblical morality is measured against all other systems of morality. Old and
new.

So, what is your solution? What would you have done when a man rapes an unmarried woman?

I am not typing the same response 3 times.

No, apparently you won't type it once. I rechecked, you NEVER answered.

Lets try some more verses.

"They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or
two for me in the spoil." ~Judges 5:30

Raping the likely innocent women in wartime is morally okay because…. oh right…times were different. God couldn't devise a better moral
understanding for them. Never minding the fact there had long since been some impressively, progressively, moral teachings in the East (I suppose god
just wanted that select group to have that wisdom eh?).

Who was Sisera? Do you even know? That's the problem when you google for verses to post.

No, because God gets the ultimate "get out of jail free" card.
Its the claim that humans cannot possibly be as all-knowing as God, and cannot judge him due to not having access to the same information or knowledge
of higher plans.
God moves in mysterious ways, as they say.

Its a wonderful escape clause. One that would never work for any other field of human experience:
eg. No Officer, although it may look as if I was breaking the law, you simply dont realise the full extent of my lawful behaviour.
eg. Although it may appear as if I did not win the lottery, you simply cannot understand the mysterious ways of my actually winning it.
eg. Mr Bank Manager, although it may appear at first glance that I have no money in my account, you simply cannot judge my account balance because you
are a flawed human and cannot see the bigger picture of my massive fortune.

Or to misquote Hitler:
Although it may seem to you that I am cruel to certain groups of humans, you really cannot grasp the whole universal scheme, and actually realise how
loving I am to everyone.

Picking Jesus to die even before the possibility of sin was created.
Rewarding Satan with dominion and the power to deceive.
Murdering Adam and Eve for not staying stupid.
Torturing King David's baby for six days before finally killing it because God was angry with David.

Many have read the scriptures and come away at the end with a poor impression of God’s morals. This judgement stands apart of their belief or
non-belief in God and the bible God is rejected purely on moral grounds.

ok can you give us some examples please? I am interested in hearing a Christian's opinion about the New Testament.

Yes but if you do not ask questions you cannot receive the answers? Seek and you shall find.

Even if the bible sometimes claim god is a bully that is from my point of view humans lack of understanding. In some way the bible is probably the
most blasphemous slander on god ever created.

If god was a ego proud bully like in the OT then would god not hate all the people who believe that god is ego proud. Seems wiser too leave faith
based religion all together and only think happy thoughts about god does it not?

But then from my point of view revelation is about chakras. And that is where faith ends and knowledge and experience takes over.

You are basically correct and you will note that Churches do not teach what Jesus taught about the Eastern traditions and how he preferred them to
what Christianity has become.

I wrote this to try to get Christians to think about what they are taught. A tough go as most don't believe at all and just follow out of tradition
and culture.

It is not a question of judging God, but the questioning of an entity that claims to be one.

The 'god' of the old testament serves to reveal the very nature of the 'lying murdering father' that Jesus Christ informed the Pharisee/Sadducee
clans of that worshiped his bloodletting ways in error, contrary to the Good Spirit that Sent Him. He was murdered by the 'chosen' of this god for
His 'blasphemy'.

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because
there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44 KJV

Much has been maligned in the name of Truth, more than most faithful would be comfortable in acknowledging.

edit on 21-11-2013 by PrimeLight
because: (no reason given)

They have gotten quite good at ignoring what was written.

The few believers who actually read the bible that is. Mostly from the delusional literalist right wing.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.